Originally placed in Game Writing forum, but I realised that it wasn't quite on-topic for that forum. I've been thinking about story in games, and one thing is that many games rely on the attempt a section, die, restart section until you get to the (single) outcome. Well, one exercise in story telling would be to make a game where the story and events don't allow for death (of the player's character at least). So everything the player does permanently affects the gameworld and the characters in it. So if they do something that annoys a character they will be annoyed with the player and the player might need to apologise or even make it up to the character. If the player is protecting a melon patch from hungry gibbons, then if they raid it - the patch is ruined and few melons grow there in future. If the player builds a house, then it will stay there unless it is knocked down. So what sort of gameplay / storyshaping actions can we give the player? What will be the fun part? Edit: --- Synopsis: Avoiding the try-die-reload mentality in favour of one-shot deals changes the emphasis from repetitive gameplay to story shaping cause-and-effect consequences. Now if you make a story where no-one dies, this requires you to be more inventive than usual. Ie. Not just making a cloned shooter. Furthermore, it allows for more feedback on the events. Ie. If all characters are alive at the end, then you can hear how your actions have affected them and their emotions. [Edited by - Ketchaval on April 16, 2005 8:12:18 AM]

Have you checked out the Myst series? It's one of the most successful series, and yet it's nod with no (minimal) violence. Oh, and the player can't die (Except for one place in the 3rd game).

Also, check out the monkey island series from Lucas arts.

Granted, these are more Adventure/puzzle games, but it might give you some ideas how to make games without violence.

Well, there's always the Monkey Island series. Actually, any of the old Lucas Arts games.

//edit *reads above post* *smacks self*

I guess while I'm at it, you should check around for public traces of the Xenallure game that Sunandshadow is heading up. It's very emotion-driven, and although there will be combat, it will be non-lethal. It's possible that someone would die, but not in the normal sense (not cause she got shot, in other words).

You can actually die in Monkey Island (I can't totally remember the underwater part in the sequel).

Anyways, I feel you're looking down at a very narrow tunnel here. Games dealing with humans usually have objectives that in some way include the notion of death/violence. People are really boring if you think about it and here on this small planet our global pastime has always been the combination of sex and violence. Not many options there. I don't think you can get very far by thinking how to combine these elements in a way that is somehow new, fresh.

You have to think, though.. On one hand you have the word 'player'. On the other there is 'viewer'. People don't like to carry the weight of failure so they reload. There's no real death/consequence in a game, so go figure. Running in circles.

This was been sort of semi-related. On another note, on being inventive, I don't think you're doing it enough. You're tinkering inside the boundaries set by current games. You make sort of attemps at crossing the border, but you don't look at yourself from the outside.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster

Logged out while I was typing.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster You can actually die in Monkey Island

no you can't.

There are a few jokes about this taboo.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster There are a few jokes about this taboo.

Best one possibly being the scene in second game, when you're caught with Wally in leChuck's fortress and take too much time to put out the candle... :s

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster On another note, on being inventive, I don't think you're doing it enough. You're tinkering inside the boundaries set by current games.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6106009/p-4.html
QUOTE

One theory, at least among gamers, is that true innovation is thwarted by developers' needs to build games that fit within the ordained genres for sales purposes. Murray thinks that new genres are forming, however. "I think it's very telling to me in Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen's new book, The Rules of Play, where they come close to excluding Sim City as a game, because it doesn't have a winning condition," says Murray, suggesting that by the same standard, The Sims might also be excluded. "If you're going to exclude one of the most popular games of all time...then it's because 'game' is too narrow a word. And I think that we'll start to think about games the same way we think about movies--as a sort of metacategory where there are a lot of different categories. I think there are things that are emerging that are new forms, and it challenges the boundaries of what we're used to thinking of as games."

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster You can actually die in Monkey Island no you can't. There are a few jokes about this taboo.

I could clearly remember the Sierra death message but I guess I forgot the rubber tree.

People who don't have to whore out their games should take advantage of the situation. That's the edge you have over the big names.

You can die in monkey island, they put it in as a joke. (In the first game, there's a part where they tie to a statue, throw you in the water, and you have to try to figure out how to escape. If you don't figure it out within 10 minutes, (that's how long guybrush can hold his breath) you die. (In the time leading up to the 10 minute mark, you can see his face slowly change colour as he runs out of breath.) This is the ONLY place in the games where you can actually die.

As for why you can die in games, is that the point of a game is to overcome a challenge. Therefore, if you have a story, you must have some kind of conflict to create that challenge. When dealling with people, most conflicts eventually default back to violence.

Also, when dealling with a "Victory condition", it's easiest to ballance with a "Loosing condition". It's just easier to understand that way. (You can do without, but it takes more careful planning. Further more, the idea of not loosing drives the player just as much as winning. And, when dealling with violence, how much clearer can make loosing than dieing? (Also, it allows the developer to get lazy. If the player dies, they just restart. If they didn't die, the developer would need some other way of dealling with the loss.)